Wednesday, January 27, 2016

New Evidence:We the citizens of Nevadaand the United States of America are tired of paying for unconstitutional government.

Today we learned two Burns Militia vehicles were stopped on their way to a Community Meeting and the Militia Spokesman was shot to death.

There were conflicting accounts.

MSM did not state why the vehicles were stopped in the first place.

We note the dead man did not occupy theMalheur National Wildlife Refuge Building. He was known as Tarp Man, father of 11 children:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iae8iXKJ4w 4:07

Was there actually a legal warrant or probable cause?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/us/oregon-siege-traffic-stop/

NY Times stated, "The 11 who have been arrested have been charged in federal court with
conspiracy to impede officers of the United States from discharging
their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats,
a felony."

Under our US Constitution, the opposite appears to be true, that US Citizens were denied their lawful rights for peaceful assembly and petition by a conspiracy of government force, intimidation and threats.

Fed fusionoverkill, in plain parlance.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge is 293 square miles of willful bureaucatic excess that drove people off their lands and violated their Constitutional rights over decades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

To quote parts of Our Constitution relevant to Burns, OR:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)

to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of
the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings;

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes
shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the
Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have
directed.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without
the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be
prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no
fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

The video showedmultiple officers behind and inside three roadblock trucks with chase vehicles.

One armed government agent was hidden in the woods.

He possibly shot Mr Finicum in the back with a rifle.

Another armed government agent wasclearly in a shooting stance at the 6:00 minute mark, while the deceased had his hands in the air:

https://youtu.be/gjl1hefqqWI?t=5m48s 8:03 In Ruby Ridge and Waco, BATF, US Marshalls or FBI also claimed they did not shoot first,before Infrared photography and witnesses showed they did.

The FBI admitted firing at 54 year-old Mr Finicum while he was driving his truck.

That was clearly a present danger to his passengers and the roadblock.

The NYT 35 second video edited out some of the shootingwith lack of continuous coverage.

The FBI stated, “On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a
pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket. He did have a loaded 9
mm semiautomatic handgun in that pocket.” sic

Where exactly was the visual video evidence claimed?

Is it possible witnesses in Mr Finicum's white truck saw otherwise?

Are their lives and rights also in danger?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/oregon-standoff.html?_r=1

Is it possible Mr Finicum's hands going to his abdomen in frame 6:01 were a pain reflex after being shot?

The FBI said he was shot as many as nine times.

They waited ten minutes before offering aid (when he was dead).

Most importantly, no shots were fired by Mr Finicum or his truck occupants.

Many
people will awaken today to the news of approximately 100 to 150 armed
militia taking control of a closed Wildlife Park Headquarters, and not
know the full back-story – so here it is:

The short summary is: in an effort to draw attention to a ridiculous arrest of a father and son pair of Oregon Ranchers (“Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46,)
who are scheduled to begin five year prison sentences (turning
themselves in tomorrow January 4th 2016), three brothers from the Cliven
Bundy family and approximately 100/150 (and growing) armed militia
(former U.S. service members) have taken control of the closed Malheur Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in the wildlife reserve.

They are prepared to stay there indefinitely.Here’s the long version: including history, details, links, video(s) and explanations:

Hammond Family

HISTORY: (aa) The Harney Basin (where the Hammond
ranch is established) was settled in the 1870’s. The valley was settled
by multiple ranchers and was known to have run over 300,000 head of
cattle. These ranchers developed a state of the art irrigated system to
water the meadows, and it soon became a favorite stopping place for
migrating birds on their annual trek north.(ab) In 1908 President Theodor Roosevelt, in a political scheme,
created an “Indian reservation” around the Malheur, Mud & Harney
Lakes and declared it “as a preserve and breeding ground for native
birds”. Later this “Indian reservation” (without Indians) became the
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.(a) In 1964 the Hammonds’ purchased their ranch in the Harney Basin.
The purchase included approximately 6000 acres of private property, 4
grazing rights on public land, a small ranch house and 3 water rights.
The ranch is around 53 miles South of Burns, Oregon.(a1) By the 1970’s nearly all the ranches adjacent to the Blitzen
Valley were purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and
added to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge covers over
187,000 acres, stretches over 45 miles long and 37 miles wide.

The
expansion of the refuge grew and surrounds the Hammond’s ranch.
Approached many times by the FWS, the Hammonds refused to sell. Other
ranchers also choose not to sell.(a2) During the 1970’s the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in
conjunction with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), took a different
approach to get the ranchers to sell.

Ranchers were told: “grazing was
detrimental to wildlife and must be reduced”; 32 out of 53 permits were
revoked and many ranchers were forced to leave.

Grazing fees were raised
significantly for those who were allowed to remain. Refuge personnel
took over the irrigation system, claiming it as their own.(a3) By 1980 a conflict was well on its way over water allocations on
the adjacent privately owned Silvies Plain.

The FWS wanted to acquire
the ranch lands on the Silvies Plain to add to their already vast
holdings.

Refuge personnel intentionally diverted the water bypassing
the vast meadow lands, directing the water into the rising Malheur
Lakes. Within a few short years the surface area of the lakes doubled.

Thirty-one ranches on the Silvies plains were flooded.

Homes, corrals,
barns and graze-land were washed away and destroyed.

The ranchers who
once fought to keep the FWS from taking their land, now broke and
destroyed, begged the FWS to acquire their useless ranches.

In 1989 the
waters began to recede; now the once thriving privately owned Silvies
plains are a part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge claimed
by the FWS.(a4) By the 1990’s the Hammonds were one of the very few ranchers who
still owned private property adjacent to the refuge.

Susie Hammond, in
an effort to make sense of what was going on, began compiling facts about
the refuge.

In a hidden public record she found a study done by the FWS
in 1975. The study showed the “no use” policies of the FWS on the
refuge were causing the wildlife to leave the refuge and move to private
property.

The study showed the private property adjacent to the Malheur
Wildlife Refuge produced four times more ducks and geese than the
refuge.

The study also showed the migrating birds were 13 times more
likely to land on private property than on the refuge.

When Susie
brought this to the attention of the FWS and refuge personnel, she and
her family became the subjects of a long train of abuses, corruptions and usurpations.(b) In the early 1990’s the Hammonds filed on a livestock water
source and obtained a deed for the water right from the State of Oregon.

When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and US Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) found out the Hammonds obtained new water rights near the
Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, they were agitated and became belligerent and
vindictive toward the Hammonds.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service
challenged the Hammonds right to the water in an Oregon State Circuit
Court.

The court found the Hammonds legally obtained rights to the water
in accordance to State law and therefore the use of the water belongs
to the Hammonds.*(c) In August 1994 the BLM & FWS illegally began building a fence
around the Hammonds water source.

Owning the water rights, and knowing
that their cattle relied on that water source daily, the Hammonds tried
to stop the building of the fence.

The BLM & FWS called the Harney
County Sheriff department and had Dwight Hammond (Father) arrested and
charged with “disturbing and interfering with” federal officials or
federal contractors (two counts, each a felony).

Dwight spent one night
in the Deschutes County Jail in Bend, and a second night behind bars in
Portland.

He was then hauled before a federal magistrate and released
without bail.

A hearing on the charges was postponed and the federal
judge never set another date.(d) The FWS also began restricting access to upper pieces of the
Hammond’s private property.

In order to get to the upper part of the
Hammond’s ranch they had to go on a road that went through the Malhuer
Wildlife Refuge.

The FWS began barricading the road and threatening the
Hammonds if they drove through it.

The Hammonds removed the barricades
and gates and continued to use their right of access.

The road was
proven later to be owned by the County of Harney. This further enraged
the BLM & FWS.(e) Shortly after the road & water disputes, the BLM & FWS
arbitrarily revoked the Hammond’s upper grazing permit without any given
cause, court proceeding or court ruling.

As a traditional “fence out
state” Oregon requires no obligation on the part of an owner to keep his
or her livestock within a fence or to maintain control over the
movement of the livestock.

The Hammonds still intended to use their
private property for grazing.

However, they were informed a federal
judge ruled, in a federal court, the federal government did not have to
observe the Oregon fence out law.

“Those laws are for the people, not
for them”.(f) The Hammonds were forced to either build and maintain miles of
fences or be restricted from the use of their private property.

Cutting
their ranch in almost half, they could not afford to fence the land, so
the cattle were removed.(g) The Hammonds experienced many years of financial hardship due to
the ranch being diminished.

The Hammonds had to sell their ranch and
home in order to purchase another property that had enough grass to feed
their cattle.

This property included two grazing rights on public land.

Those were also arbitrarily revoked later.(h) The owner of the Hammond’s original ranch passed away from a heart attack and the Hammonds made a trade for the ranch back.(i) In the early fall of 2001, Steven Hammond (Son) called the fire
department, informing them that he was going to be performing a routine
prescribed burn on their ranch.

Later that day he started a prescribed
fire on their private property.

The fire went onto public land and
burned 127 acres of grass.

The Hammonds put the fire out themselves.

There was no communication about the burn from the federal government to
the Hammonds at that time.

Prescribed fires are a common method that
Native Americans and ranchers have used in the area to increase the
health & productivity of the land for many centuries.(j) In 2006 a massive lightning storm started multiple fires that
joined together inflaming the countryside.

To prevent the fire from
destroying their winter range and possibly their home, Steven Hammond
(Son) started a backfire on their private property.

The backfire was
successful in putting out the lightning fires that had covered thousands
of acres within a short period of time.

The backfire saved much of the
range and vegetation needed to feed the cattle through the winter.

Steven’s mother, Susan Hammond said: “The backfire worked perfectly, it
put out the fire, saved the range and possibly our home”.(j1) The next day federal agents went to the Harney County Sheriff’s
office and filled a police report making accusation against Dwight and
Steven Hammond for starting the backfire.

A few days after the backfire a
Range-Con from the Burns District BLM office asked Steven if he would
meet him in town (Frenchglen) for coffee.

Steven accepted.

When leaving
he was arrested by the Harney County Sheriff Dave Glerup and BLM Ranger
Orr.

Sheriff Glerup then ordered him to go to the ranch and bring back
his father.

Both Dwight and Steven were booked on multiple Oregon
State charges.

The Harney County District Attorney reviewed the
accusation, evidence and charges, determined the accusations against
Dwight & Steven Hammond did not warrant prosecution and dropped all
the charges.(k) In 2011, 5 years after the police report was taken, the U.S.
Attorney Office accused Dwight and Steven Hammond of completely
different charges; they accused them of being “Terrorists” under the
Federal Anti terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

This act
carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum
sentence of death.

Dwight & Steven’s mug shots were all over the
news the next week posing them as “Arsonists”.

Susan Hammond (Wife &
Mother) said: “I would walk down the street or go in a store, people I
had known for years would take extreme measures to avoid me”.(l) Shortly after the sentencing, Capital Press ran a story about the
Hammonds.

A person who identified as Greg Allum posted three comments
on the article, calling the ranchers “clowns” who endangered
firefighters and other people in the area while burning valuable range
land.

Greg Allum, a retired BLM heavy equipment operator, soon called
Capital Press to complain he had not made those comments and requested
they be taken down from the website.

Capital Press removed the comments.

A search of the Internet Protocol address associated with the comments
revealed the origin as the BLM’s office in Denver, Colorado.

Allum said,
he is friends with the Hammonds and he was alerted to the comments by
neighbors who knew he wouldn’t have written them.

“I feel bad for them.
They lost a lot and they’re going to lose more,” Allum said of the
ranchers.

“They’re not terrorists”.

“There’s this hatred in the BLM for
them, and I don’t get it,” the retired BLM employee said.

Jody Weil,
deputy state director for communications at BLM’s Oregon office,
indicated to reporters that if one of their agents falsified the
comments, they would keep it private and not inform the public.(m) In September 2006, Dwight & Susan Hammond’s home was raided.

The agents informed the Hammonds they were looking for evidence that
would connect them to the fires.

The Hammonds later found out a boot
print and a tire tracks were found near one of the many fires.

No
matching boots or tires were found in the Hammonds home or on their
property.

Susan Hammond (Wife) later said; ” I have never felt so
violated in my life. We are ranchers not criminals”.

Steven Hammond
openly maintains his testimony that he started the backfire to save the
winter grass from being destroyed and the backfire ended up working so
well it put out the fire altogether.(n) During the trial proceedings, Federal Court Judge Michael Hogan
did not allow time for certain testimonies and evidence into the trail
which would exonerate the Hammonds.

Federal prosecuting attorney, Frank
Papagni, was given full access for six days. He had ample time to use
any evidence or testimony that strengthened the demonization of the
Hammonds.

The Hammonds attorney was only allowed 1 day.

Many of the
facts about the fires, land and why the Hammonds acted the way they did
was not allowed into the proceedings and was not heard by the jury.

Example: Judge Hogan did not allow time for the jury to hear or review
certified scientific findings the fires improved the health and
productivity of the land.

Or, that the Hammonds had been subject to
vindictive behavior by multiple federal agencies for years.(o) Federal attorney Frank Papagni hunted down a witness who was
not mentally capable to be credible.

Dusty Hammond (grandson and
nephew) testified that Steven told him to start a fire.

He was
13-years-old at the time, and 24-years-old when he testified (11 years
later).

At 24 Dusty had been suffering with mental problems for many
years. He had estranged his family including his mother.

Judge Hogan
noted that Dusty’s memories as a 13-year-old boy were not clear or
credible.

However, Judge Hogan allowed the prosecution to continually
use Dusty’s testimony.

When speaking to the Hammonds about this
testimony, they understood Dusty was manipulated and expressed nothing
but love for their troubled grandson.(p) Judge Michael Hogan & Frank Papagni tampered with the jury
many times throughout the proceedings, including during the selection
process.

Hogan & Papagni only allowed people on the jury who did not
understand the customs and culture of the ranchers or how land is used
and cared for in the Diamond Valley.

All of the jurors had to drive back
and forth to Pendleton every day. Some drove more than two hours each
way.

By day 8 they were exhausted and expressed desires to be home.On the final day, Judge Hogan kept pushing them to make a verdict.

[Several times during deliberation, Judge Hogan pushed them to make a
decision.]

Judge Hogan also would not allow the jury to hear what
punishment could be imposed upon an individual convicted as a terrorist
under the 1996 act.

The jury, not understanding the customs and cultures
of the area and influenced by the prosecutors for six straight days,
very exhausted, pushed for a verdict by the judge, unaware of the
ramification of convicting someone as a terrorist, gave a verdict and
went home.(q) June 22, 2012, Dwight and Steven were found guilty of starting
both the 2001 and the 2006 fires by the jury.

However, the federal
courts convicted them both as “Terrorists” under the 1996 Anti terrorism
Act.

Judge Hogan overruling the minimum terrorist
sentence, commented if the full five years were required it would be a
violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

The day
of the sentencing Judge Hogan retired as a federal judge. In his honor
the staff served chocolate cake in the courtroom.(r) On January 4, 2013, Dwight and Steven reported to prison. They
fulfilled their sentences, (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months).

Dwight
was released in March 2013 and Steven, January 2014.(s) Sometime in June 2014, Rhonda Karges, Field Manager for the BLM,
and her husband Chad Karges, Refuge Manager for the Malheur Wildlife
Refuge (which surrounds the Hammond ranch), along with attorney Frank
Papagni exemplified further vindictive behavior by filing an appeal with
the 9th District Federal Court seeking Dwight’s and Steven’s return to
federal prison for 5 years.*(t) In October 2015, the 9th District Court “re-sentenced” Dwight and
Steven, requiring them to return to prison for several more years.

Steven (46) has a wife and 3 children.

Dwight (74) will leave Susan (74)
to be alone after 55 years of marriage.

If he survives, he will be 79
when he is released.(u) During the court preceding the Hammonds were forced to grant the
BLM first right of refusal; if the Hammonds ever sold their ranch they
would have to sell it to the BLM.(v) Dwight and Steven are ordered to report to federal prison again on January 4th, 2016 to begin their re-sentencing.

Both their wives will have to manage the ranch for several years without them.To date the Hammonds have paid $200,000 to the BLM, and the remainder
$200,000 must be paid before the end of year (2015).

If the Hammonds
cannot pay the fines to the BLM, they will be forced to sell the ranch
to the BLM or face further prosecution.

Now you can watch this video where Ammon Bundy responds to why he and his brothers are involved. (This was recorded two days ago on Jan 1st):

After a protest rally supporting the Hammond family yesterday, a
pre-planned group, including the Bundy Brothers, left a peaceful protest
at the Harney County Sheriff’s Office and went to the closed (for
holiday) Malheur Wildlife Refuge, where they have seized and occupied
the refuge headquarters.

(Via Oregon Live)
[…] The Bundy family of Nevada joined with hard-core militiamen
Saturday to take over the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife
Refuge, vowing to occupy the remote federal outpost 50 miles southeast
of Burns for years.The occupation came shortly after an estimated 300 marchers — militia
and local citizens both — paraded through Burns to protest the
prosecution of two Harney County ranchers, Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven
Hammond, who are to report to prison on Monday.Among the occupiers is Ammon Bundy, son of Nevada rancher Cliven
Bundy, and two of his brothers.

Militia members at the refuge claimed
they had as many as 100 supporters with them.

The refuge, federal
property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was closed and
unoccupied for the holiday weekend.In phone interviews from inside the occupied building Saturday night,
Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan Bundy, said they are not looking to
hurt anyone.

But they would not rule out violence if police tried to
remove them, they said.“The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” Ammon Bundy said.“We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely,” he added. “This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute.” (more)

Ammon Bundy said in a Facebook video they have
taken over refuge to use as militia base for years. Called patriots from
U.S. to come.

A letter dated January 1st outlines the position of the Bundy brothers, as well as the 150+ in the Militia as it relates to the Hammond family:

With great concern and love and much
consideration from prayer, I come to you Harney County Sheriff of Oregon
David M. Ward, rancher Steven Dwight Hammond, and rancher Dwight
Lincoln Hammond, Jr.,

I, Cliven D. Bundy, have been involved
for several weeks in the background striving to understand and
comprehend your dilemmas in Harney County, Oregon.

I understand the
grass that was burned on each side of the fence was grazing rights that
had been created through beneficial use, one side of the fence being
private property and the other side of the fence being private property
rights. The fires that were set were for a good purpose and had good
results.

The United States Justice Department
has NO jurisdiction or authority within the State of Oregon, County of
Harney over this type of ranch management.

These lands are not under
U.S. treaties or commerce, they are not article 4 territories, and
Congress does not have unlimited power.

These lands have been admitted
into statehood and are part of the great State of Oregon and the
citizens of Harney County enjoy the fullness of the protections of the
U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution limits United States
government.

It is my suggestion, Steven Hammond,
that you go and check yourself into Harney County jail asking for
protective custody.

It is my suggestion, Dwight Hammond, that you go and
check yourself into Harney County jail asking for protective custody.

It is my suggestion, Harney County Sheriff David Ward, accept these two
ranchers into your jail, notify the United States Solicitor in
Washington DC that you have these two ranchers in Harney County jail,
that they will remain there indefinitely under your protective custody
and the protection of We the People of Harney County and We the People
of the United States of America.

I suggest an Evidentiary Hearing or a Grand Jury be formed by We the People.

I feel that this action is immediately
important, that it should be taken place before 10:00 am Saturday,
January 2, 2016. I will hold these suggestions private until that time
then I will release this letter to those having state and county
jurisdiction and to the media.

Marshall
recommended that the federal government challenge the Hammonds’ original
prison sentences.

By law, the convictions come with mandatory five-year
sentences, but U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan in 2012 balked at the
punishment and instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months and
Steven Hammond to one year.

Marshall called Hogan’s punishments
“unlawful.”

The solicitor general authorized a rare appeal of an Oregon
judge’s order.

The appeals court sided with the prosecution, and the
Hammonds returned to federal court last year to face a second
sentencing.

“This is a crucial time in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Oregon, which
investigates and prosecutes federal crimes.

The office is leading a
sweeping influence-peddling investigation of former Gov. John Kitzhaber
and his companion, Cylvia Hayes.

Marshall was the surprise choice to replace interim U.S. Attorney Dwight
Holton in 2010.

She had no experience as a federal prosecutor.*

Rather,
she was plucked from a child advocacy legal job inside the Oregon
Department of Justice.

Before that, she served as a deputy district
attorney in Coos County.

Kerin is married to a fellow-federal prosecutor in the Portland office.

Marshall is married to Ladd Wiles, who last May was elected Circuit
Court judge in Yamhill County.”NOTE: In the above story, her attorney, Charese Rohny, misleads the
Oregonian by saying that the victim Kerin was the subject of an OIG
investigation, which was untrue, as it was Marshall who OIG was
investigating.